Thursday, Apr 6, 2017, 2:04 pm

Court Expands LGBT Worker Rights by Attacking Originalism

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

The case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court. When it gets there, the Court will not only have to address the meaning of “sex,” finally, but also how laws should be read. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

An appeals court ruled in support of LGBT rights this week, reversing decades of interpretation that largely allowed companies to discriminate against workers on the basis of sexual orientation.

In their groundbreaking decision, nine of 12 judges in an en banc panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that gay and lesbian workers are protected under Title VII. The Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College decision marks a major break from an interpretation that excluded sexual orientation, except in instances where one could make an argument of gender nonconformity. That meant that, previously, in order for workers to prove discrimination under Title VII, they had to allege that they were being discriminated against because they were not acting according to the stereotype associated with their gender.

Kimberly Hively had been an adjunct for 14 years at Ivy Tech Community College in Indiana. She applied for six full-time positions at the college and, after being denied each, her adjunct contract was not renewed in 2014. So, without a lawyer, Hively filed a one-paragraph discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It stated simply:

I have applied for several positions at IVY TECH, fulltime, in the last 5 years. I believe I am being blocked from fulltime employment without just cause. I believe I am being discriminated against based on my sexual orientation. I believe I have been discriminated against and that my rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were violated.

She then filed her case in federal district court, again bringing forward the simple argument that Title VII should protect a worker from being discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation. The district court was sympathetic to her claim, but explained that Title VII prohibits discrimination “because of sex,” and explained that the court’s precedent “has held that Congress intended the term ‘sex’ to mean ‘biological male or biological female,’ and not one’s sexuality or sexual orientation. Thus, ‘harassment based solely upon a person’s sexual preference or orientation ... is not an unlawful employment practice under Title VII.’”

The appeals court rejected this longstanding reading, stating that “it would require considerable calisthenics to remove the ‘sex’ from ‘sexual orientation.’ The effort to do so has led to confusing and contradictory results, as our panel opinion illustrated so well.”

The court further explained that whatever Congress meant in 1964 when it passed the law, or however courts have interpreted the law in the intervening decades, it was no longer tenable to exclude sexual orientation. Indeed, since the Supreme Court announced in 2015 that the Constitution protects the rights of same-sex couples, allowing sexual orientation discrimination on the job means “a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act,” the ruling read.

The majority (as well as Judge Richard Posner in his concurrence), not only acknowledged this important worker protection under the law, but also performed a full-frontal attack on the forms of legal interpretation that have become a hallmark of the conservative legal movement. The originalism advocated by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, or his possible successor Neil Gorsuch, says that judges must read laws only as they were written, and understand the words only as the drafters would have understood them. Such a view limits any interpretation that expands a law to incorporate instances that the drafters may not have considered. Most often such originalist readings lead to highly conservative, if not reactionary, results.

Writing for the majority, Judge Diane Wood not only defied any originalist understanding of the law, but refused to engage the matter on originalist terms. The ruling did not refer to any 1960s dictionaries to determine the full meaning of “sex,” as so many judges do these days when attempting to determine the meaning of even simple words. Instead, it acknowledged that changes in society, and the word’s meaning, necessarily means that the law must change.

“It is therefore neither here nor there that the Congress that enacted the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and chose to include sex as a prohibited basis for employment discrimination (no matter why it did so) may not have realized or understood the full scope of the words it chose,” the ruling read. This disregard for the original intent of the law’s drafters, and recognition that laws should be read in today’s context, is a major shift from the originalist analysis that Justice Scalia helped spread. For too long, even judges who disagreed with originalism still challenged the concept on its own terms by referring to old dictionaries and arguing that the modern reading was implied by the original meaning.

In Hively, the court held that the modern concept of sex is broad enough to include both gender and sexual orientation. Any other reading, no matter what the 1964 Congress intended, has led to absurd results in today’s world.

Judge Posner went even further in his attack on the originalist understanding of the law. Using a cumbersomely-named approach he calls “judicial interpretive updating,” he argues that judges can interpret texts by giving them “a meaning that infuses the statement with vitality and significance today.” He acknowledges that in 1964, “the term ‘sex’…undoubtedly meant ‘man or woman,’” and that “homosexuality, male or female, did not figure in the minds of the legislators who enacted Title VII.” For an originalist, that would be the end of the analysis. But Posner finds such an approach shallow. It forces an anachronistic view of sex onto the present and, in the present, “‘sex’ has a broader meaning than the genitalia you’re born with,” he wrote.

It is not often that a case addresses nuanced questions of sex, gender and identity, while also questioning one of the foundations of conservative legal thought. This decision is likely not the last word. The Seventh Circuit’s decision comes on the heels of the Eleventh Circuit finding that sexual orientation discrimination claims cannot be brought under Title VII and the Second Circuit falling back on gender stereotyping for sexual orientation claims. Because of the circuit split and the importance of the Seventh Circuit’s decision, the case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court. When it gets there, the Court will not only have to address the meaning of “sex,” finally, but also how laws should be read.

Help In These Times Continue Publishing

Progressive journalism is needed now more than ever, and In These Times needs you.

Have you at all earned large sums of money without selling something and also left out engaging in any kind of direct selling type of job and not having to invest anything. I wanted to share with you a work at which pretty much all tools are generally alloted to you furthermore it is a very simple as well as relatively easy venture. Without having need to set up your very own domain names and many more., all is definitely delivered to you 100 percent free. Customers are likely to have a look at your main site and you will benefit from getting remunerated for that. It is actually so simple as that. I am earning a whole lot of money at home through this job really like 20000 dollars once a month or even more if likewise you prefer to take home money very similar to that so therefore follow all these incredibly easy tips by going to this web page >>>>> SHRTY.LINK/lxJnEf

Posted by Harry Hunter on 2017-04-11 13:14:42

Just because you, personally, continue to believe that sexual orientation is a mental illness doesn't make it so. There is no recognized medical or psychological body in this country that recognizes sexual orientation as a mental illness. And don't presume your bigotry extends to labor in general.

Posted by markpkessinger on 2017-04-10 23:56:46

Making money on the net is just as super easy (as well as really hard) just as getting cash off-line. Despite the fact that countless Marketing online gurus guarantee to currently have a hidden knowledge process to earn fast lots of cash, the simple truth is, there is not any procedure one can turn out to be rich instantaneously by way of clicking on a button or just shopping a number of book. Profiting on-line requires some hard work and also patience. For anybody who is prepare to put in sufficient time and also effort in it, there are various methods for generating a lot more cash flow over the internet.I am gaining 10 thousand bucks possibly even far more a month with this work.Here's the shortcut to earn cash whereas the others are long-term making money online ideas >>>>> DELICIOUSURL.COM//22

Posted by Leonardo Coleman on 2017-04-10 06:33:28

Earning profits by going online is often as easy (or possibly as complicated) as generating an income offline. While thousands upon thousands of Marketing and advertising teachers say to surely have a blueprint formula to earn instant wealth, the fact is, there is absolutely no manner you possibly can grow unbelievably rich as soon as possible by clicking on a key or perhaps ordering a small number of course. Making money on the net usually takes working hard and also persistence. When you find yourself in a position to give time and strength in it, you will discover numerous options for bringing in high earnings from the web.I am receiving $10 thousand possibly even way more per month through this project.Here is the shortcut to earn a living even though the rest are very long internet money making ideas >>>>> GET.LC/zJLVP

Posted by Joel Garcia on 2017-04-09 12:16:25

Getting cash using the web is as trouble-free (or perhaps just as stressful) just as earning money off-line. Despite the fact that hundreds upon hundreds of Internet business gurus believe to surely have a top-secret procedure making instant profit, the truth is, there is no best way you are able to become wealthy person within hours by simply clicking on a button or perhaps picking up a number of book. Being profitable through online needs to have intense work as well as commitment. If you happen to be prepared to invest the required time and also strength involved with it, there are tips for bringing in extra earnings through the web.I am bringing in 10 thousand bucks or maybe way more per month using this gig.Here's the secret to earn while the rest are very long money making business ideas >>>>> OUOURL.COM/4rh1

Posted by Jesse Jenkins on 2017-04-09 05:37:46

Unless Labor wants to keep losing battle after battle we need to divorce ourselves from the insanity that has gripped the Left. If you think Trump is bad just wait till what follows him. The normal non-crazy people are getting very tired of having various mental illnesses shoved down their throats.

Posted by Jew613 on 2017-04-08 11:12:16

Indeed I obtained victory to get paid Ninty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Seven dollars.I discovered this job six calender months prior and a pair of months ago I definitely practiced it and I have made such a wonderful bucks. It is extremely advantageous for me individually and also my family.My friends and relatives wondered to look at exactly how I settled my online career and my Life in very less time. Thank you so much Almighty for this....You can as well make similar number of wealth, if you own a PC and internet access at home. Extra technical expertness are not necessary to work on this work. I'm Loving it and all of you will also love it and also you will definitely not pardon yourself if you not at all explore the facts >>>>>> B1Z.ORG/38n

Posted by Henrik King on 2017-04-08 02:37:22

The concept of "Originalism" is essentially bogus (and can be seen to be so, by looking at our records). In addition, in the modern world, it is just not a practical way of operating. Certainly, we must use our basic legal governing documents, and our past rulings; but we must also consider new human developments, as we -- and our country -- travel through life, and new issues arise. Just like they do with the principle of "States Rights", the Right-Wing elements in our society trot out the idea of "Originalism" when it serves their purpose, and then simply ignore it when the idea does not suit their needs. Living without ethics gives them a sort of freedom of behavior that honest people do not have.

Posted by Steve in DC on 2017-04-07 19:59:32

About this Blog

Working In These Times brings you weekly coverage of the labor movement and the struggle of workers everywhere to organize for a better world. more